Discuss anything and everything related to the Transformers Live Action Films franchise, which are directed by Michael Bay. Transformers 3 is scheduled to be released on July 1st, 2011. Check out our Live Action Film section here.

Watching Transformers (2007) got me think a lot, "Wait, I watched the Transformers Cartoon series for a LONG time, and Frenzy was ALWAYS Soundwave's minions, but now he's Barricade's minion?". Frenzy was never Barricade's minion, but in the movie he is? I need answers.

Well, originally, soundwave wasn going to be in the film. Same with Arcee and Striker. They didn't have the funding for this, however, so frenzy was sort of a nod to Soundwave in his absense. Of course, they put one of soundwave's minions in each movie, bbut the actual Soundwave didnt come in till part 2.

^Ravage himself also had Reedman and possibly Doctor Scalpel as minions.

While not totally the same, many Movieverse characters have the same role/characteristics as their G1 counterparts. There aren't quite as many wild deviations many other adaptations fall prey to (see: Mario Bros. movie).

Noideaforaname wrote:^Ravage himself also had Reedman and possibly Doctor Scalpel as minions.

While not totally the same, many Movieverse characters have the same role/characteristics as their G1 counterparts. There aren't quite as many wild deviations many other adaptations fall prey to (see: Mario Bros. movie).

The films are a LOT more faithful than I think most fans would care to admit.

Marcdachamp wrote:The films are a LOT more faithful than I think most fans would care to admit.

To quote Incepticon from TFW

Prime: semi truck, mouthplate, red & blue, Autobot leader, voiced by Peter Cullen - as per G1Bumblebee: yellow car, cute, Sam's "buddy" - as per G1Jazz: small sports car, visor in robot mode, sounds "black" (not in a racist way) - as per G1Ratchet: medic vehicle, medic character - as per G1Ironhide: old, war torn & gruff in character - as per G1Wheeljack: inventor character - as per G1Megatron: silver & gray, Decepticon leader - as per G1Shockwave: cyclops eye, head antenna, purple, large canon on arm - as per G1Starscream: jet, underling to Megatron, weasley personality - as per G1Soundwave: recon, spy, has Ravage & Laserbeak minions, voiced by Frank Welker - as per G1Ravage: cat-like beast mode, minion of Soundwave - as per G1Laserbeak: condor bird-like beast mode, minion of Soundwave - as per G1Brawl: giant green tank - as per G1Devastator: combiner made of Constructicons - as per G1Long Haul: dump truck, Constructicon, colored bright green - as per G1Sam: last name Witwicky, companion to Bumblebee - as per G1Carly: blonde, girlfriend of Sam - as per G1

Soundwave was originally planned to be in the movie, (at one point, he was a damn blender...) but was cut out (only to be in ROTF and DOTM). Since Frenzy was already in there (Was going to be named Soundwave at one point) they gave him to Decepticon Prowl Barricade.

Although G1 and Movie-Verse have many, many similarties (and differences. This is one of them), they are NOT the same continuity. And it's made very obvious. Everything does not have to match up with G1, although some GEEWUNNERS fans have continuously hope this to be so.

By "Kim Yura" & "Zimmo81"

Henry921 wrote:You can always be counted on to listen to reason, Pryme.

Dead Metal wrote:Have you ever, and i mean ever seen/read/heard something that is completely original and does not copy/homage/pay tribute to something else? Here's a hint: Nope. You never have and you never will.

Marcdachamp wrote:The films are a LOT more faithful than I think most fans would care to admit.

To quote Incepticon from TFW

Prime: semi truck, mouthplate, red & blue, Autobot leader, voiced by Peter Cullen - as per G1Bumblebee: yellow car, cute, Sam's "buddy" - as per G1Jazz: small sports car, visor in robot mode, sounds "black" (not in a racist way) - as per G1Ratchet: medic vehicle, medic character - as per G1Ironhide: old, war torn & gruff in character - as per G1Wheeljack: inventor character - as per G1Megatron: silver & gray, Decepticon leader - as per G1Shockwave: cyclops eye, head antenna, purple, large canon on arm - as per G1Starscream: jet, underling to Megatron, weasley personality - as per G1Soundwave: recon, spy, has Ravage & Laserbeak minions, voiced by Frank Welker - as per G1Ravage: cat-like beast mode, minion of Soundwave - as per G1Laserbeak: condor bird-like beast mode, minion of Soundwave - as per G1Brawl: giant green tank - as per G1Devastator: combiner made of Constructicons - as per G1Long Haul: dump truck, Constructicon, colored bright green - as per G1Sam: last name Witwicky, companion to Bumblebee - as per G1Carly: blonde, girlfriend of Sam - as per G1

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:these films didnt have characters by the name of Brawl or Wheeljack.

:^/Que/WheeljackBrawl

So, how are they not in the movies???

By "Kim Yura" & "Zimmo81"

Henry921 wrote:You can always be counted on to listen to reason, Pryme.

Dead Metal wrote:Have you ever, and i mean ever seen/read/heard something that is completely original and does not copy/homage/pay tribute to something else? Here's a hint: Nope. You never have and you never will.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Named Que in the filmNamed Devastator in the film

Again. Que/WheeljackSo this would be Devastator/Brawl

I suppose you should be more specific:these films didnt have characters by the name of Brawl or WheeljackHow about:these characters were not named Brawl and Wheeljack in the films

Because in this continuity (as far as I know), they have them named Brawl and Wheeljack everywhere else (Games, Comics, Toyline)

By "Kim Yura" & "Zimmo81"

Henry921 wrote:You can always be counted on to listen to reason, Pryme.

Dead Metal wrote:Have you ever, and i mean ever seen/read/heard something that is completely original and does not copy/homage/pay tribute to something else? Here's a hint: Nope. You never have and you never will.

Sto, it's a technicality, and I'm a spirit of the law sort of guy so this doesn't fly with me. It even sounds like it says brawl reporting when you hear the clip. The movie's ignore this , and acknowledge Devastator to be the combined form of the Constructicons(whcih Megatron actually says the name not a text box that could easily be edited to anything at the last minute.), retconning your point out of existence as Brawl is the name used in every other instance of the character outside of the movie. The movies treat the throw away line as an error, and ultimately just comes down to another Frenzy is red, and rumble is blue argument.(as if transformers needed more of those.)

There's some conflict with names, but these characters are modeled directly after their G1 counterparts, and the same name in some versiosn of the stories. I accept either name it's just being nitpicky to squabble over something that got screwed up by Hasbro/Bay/whoever else worked on these projects. Not the fans.

"The question that once haunted my being has been answered. The future is not fixed, and my choices are my own. And yet, how ironic...for I now find that I have no choice at all! I am a warrior...let the battle be joined." —Dinobot

Lastjustice wrote:Sto, it's a technicality, and I'm a spirit of the law sort of guy so this doesn't fly with me.

Hardly a technicality,Its just an other example of difference between different branch's of the franchise.

G1 originally had what?About 5 or 6 different branch's for their fictions continuity???

The movie franchise is the same.

It even sounds like it says brawl reporting when you hear the clip.

I've seen that argument, but no one has been able to show any clinical evidence of it.

The movie's ignore this , and acknowledge Devastator to be the combined form of the Constructicons(whcih Megatron actually says the name not a text box that could easily be edited to anything at the last minute.),

The fact that the sequels ignore the issue is not the same thing as a retcon.They had their chance to retcon the problem with the DVD release.Reports are that Bay refused to fix the issue.

The "text box" was ment to translate the cyberton language, so its part of the story.

retconning your point out of existence as Brawl is the name used in every other instance of the character outside of the movie.

Your wrong about that as well.

He wasnt called Brawl in the Titan Magazines Transformers movie comics and was not Brawl in the novel of the first film.

Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe

Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds

T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach

Hardly a technicality,Its just an other example of difference between different branch's of the franchise.

G1 originally had what?About 5 or 6 different branch's for their fictions continuity???

The movie franchise is the same.

That's a poor arguement because then we start going well BoneCrusher's called Devastator too because they used that name in another country, despite being the same movie. That's how stupid going with techincalities gets. What was the intented name of the Character meant to be..Brawl. I see this as no different than an animation error in G1. (they regularly colored the other Seekers the wrong colors.) Just because Michael Bay was being hard ass about it doesn't change the intent. At the time they didn't know if they'd actually get a sequel, and Bay had little respect for the franchise at this point, and didn't see care what he named stuff.

The fact that the sequels ignore the issue is not the same thing as a retcon.They had their chance to retcon the problem with the DVD release.Reports are that Bay refused to fix the issue.

Addressed above. Bay is charge of the editing, doesn't change the intent.(by Hasbro) He admitted he didn't care for franchise when he started this all in interviews, but loves it now.(Though I doubt he'd ever edit the text box for Brawl. I won't be surprised if some point down the road some special editions of the movie do fix it.) He clearly wanted to use a combiner named Devastator based off of G1 being fromed by the constructions. So regardless of a throw away line that was ignored Devastator was intented be a combiner, and Brawl was intented to be a tank in the first time. (which is name used in the video game, as they say it.)

I mean so otherwise are you suggesting there's two Cons named Devastator? Because that's where you end up, and what's the point? I say by them ignoring that throwaway, it's been retconned into it's intent(which brawl dead so his name being corrected doesn't get touched on.) I'd much rather view the Brawl mix up as an error and let Brawl be Brawl than insist on that. (I jokingly refer to him as Brawlvastator.)

Your wrong about that as well.

He wasnt called Brawl in the Titan Magazines Transformers movie comics and was not Brawl in the novel of the first film.

I picked the word all instead of majority.(I was aware of that otherwise.) Again you're just nitpicking techinicalities which doesn't make you look smart...just makes you look petty. Would looking at the big picture of intent kill you? You seem incapable of that and get bogged down with minor details. It's tranformers not law; fandom doesn't need more red tape.

And on a final note.

■Working names for Brawl were Demolisher.[1] and "Devastator", the latter of which had also been a working name for Blackout at one point.[2] Even though Michael Bay confirmed in May of 2006 that "Devastator" was not the final name[3], screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman confirmed the final name to be "Brawl" in April 2006[4], and Hasbro used that name for all their toys based on the movie character, he identifies himself as "Devastator" in a subtitle in the movie itself (even though the garbled audio used for his voice sounds an awful lot as if he says "Brawl, reporting"). According to a fan who attended the Australian press conference, Bay had confirmed that he had decided to use that name "Devastator" because he had preferred it[5], while Hasbro considered the name in the movie a "continuity error"[6], and Orci even claimed that he and Kurtzman had pointed out said "error" in the editing room twice.[7] Despite rumors to the contrary, he is not credited in the film under either name.

Hasbro considers it a continuity error..Guess what that means.

"The question that once haunted my being has been answered. The future is not fixed, and my choices are my own. And yet, how ironic...for I now find that I have no choice at all! I am a warrior...let the battle be joined." —Dinobot

Lastjustice wrote:Again you're just nitpicking techinicalities which doesn't make you look smart...just makes you look petty. Would looking at the big picture of intent kill you? You seem incapable of that and get bogged down with minor details. It's tranformers not law; fandom doesn't need more red tape.

Hasbro considers it a continuity error..Guess what that means.

I wouldn't bother with him anymore. Let him believe what he wants. On a different note; we are going way off topic. The topic at hand is worn out anyway. -_-

By "Kim Yura" & "Zimmo81"

Henry921 wrote:You can always be counted on to listen to reason, Pryme.

Dead Metal wrote:Have you ever, and i mean ever seen/read/heard something that is completely original and does not copy/homage/pay tribute to something else? Here's a hint: Nope. You never have and you never will.

Lastjustice wrote:That's a poor arguement because then we start going well BoneCrusher's called Devastator too because they used that name in another country, despite being the same movie. That's how stupid going with techincalities gets. What was the intented name of the Character meant to be..Brawl. I see this as no different than an animation error in G1. (they regularly colored the other Seekers the wrong colors.) Just because Michael Bay was being hard ass about it doesn't change the intent. At the time they didn't know if they'd actually get a sequel, and Bay had little respect for the franchise at this point, and didn't see care what he named stuff.

Again, its not a technicality.

Intent is irrelevant in these issues, as it is with any continuity issue.The character in question went trew at least 3 names durring the production of the film [Devastator,Demolisher and Brawl] , at some point each name was "intended".

Writer intent is never a way to view issues within a story.

And keep in mind, if Michael Bay was being hard ass , its his film.He "pretty much" had final say.And it was HIS intent that the tank be named Devastator.And its what we got.

Again it was Bays film, and his intent to name the tank Devastator. He admitted he didn't care for franchise when he started this all in interviews, but loves it no

He admitted he didn't care for franchise when he started this all in interviews, but loves it now.(Though I doubt he'd ever edit the text box for Brawl. I won't be surprised if some point down the road some special editions of the movie do fix it.)

I really dont see how his like of dis-like for the series is relevent to this issue/

And if he fix's it in a future DVD release then at least it can be said we got a "retcon".

He clearly wanted to use a combiner named Devastator based off of G1 being fromed by the constructions. So regardless of a throw away line that was ignored Devastator was intented be a combiner, and Brawl was intented to be a tank in the first time. (which is name used in the video game, as they say it.)

He clearly wanted the tank in the first film to be named Devastator,the man himself said he felt it sounded kooler.It was his intent and he insured it was done in the film. So regardless of 2nd character in the 2nd film having the same name, the tank in the first film was named Devastator by Bay's intent.(which is name used in the Novel adaptation and the Titan movie comics, as they printed it.)

I mean so otherwise are you suggesting there's two Cons named Devastator?

I'm not "suggesting" that.I'm pointing out the FACT that Bay gave us two Cons named Devastator in his movie series.

and what's the point?

the point is that its a fact.

I say by them ignoring that throwaway, it's been retconned into it's intent(which brawl dead so his name being corrected doesn't get touched on.) I'd much rather view the Brawl mix up as an error and let Brawl be Brawl than insist on that. (I jokingly refer to him as Brawlvastator.)

ignoring a problem doesnt fix it, it doesnt retcon anything.Useing the name a 2nd time also doesnt fix or retcon the problem.

I say by them ignoring the problem left us with 2 different characters with the same name.They had the chance to retcon it and refused to do so.

I wish they had fixed it but they didnt.I cant look at it as an error because it was done by intent [Bay's],Its his film, its what he wanted, its what he got, its what he gave us.

I picked the word all instead of majority.(I was aware of that otherwise.) Again you're just nitpicking techinicalities which doesn't make you look smart...just makes you look petty. Would looking at the big picture of intent kill you? You seem incapable of that and get bogged down with minor details. It's tranformers not law; fandom doesn't need more red tape.

And useing "blanket terms" and the wrong words to convey your message doesnt make you look any smarter.

You said "Brawl is the name used in every other instance of the character outside of the movie"

And its not " nitpicking technicalities" to point out you were in error in that claim.If you were aware of the other examples you didnt make that clear, and you should have chosen your words more carefully.

Now you ask me view the "big picture of intent" but you dont seem to be doing that yourself.The "big picture" isint just about what Hasbro intended.

The "intent" in this case changed a few times.At 1 point it was intended to be one name and at an other it was changed.Whats intended changes all the time.Its the nature of writing and story telling.Not to mention that writer/creator intent doesnt always make it to the final product.

No less whats "intended" also changes with each person involved with the project.Hasbro may have intended on Brawl, but at some point some of the writers intended "Demolisher".And Bay intended Devastator.

How do we go by intent when intent was changed several times and by several of those involved in the film?How do we pick which and who's intent to follow?

This one of the reasons I always say and argue that "writer/creator intent is irrelevant when trying to figure out in story problems.

But hey, if I'm forced to pick who's intent holds more weight, I would have to say it falls to the person in charge of the project.

And in this case thats M.Bay.

Hasbro considers it a continuity error..Guess what that means.

Nothing.

Hasbro pointed out the issue before the film was released.The writers pointed out the issue before the film was released.

Bay still did what he wanted.

Hasbro claimed the DVD release would be correctedThe writers [or producers] said it would be corrected on the DVD

Bay refused to allow it.

Guess what that means........Bays word/intent holds more weight on the "continuity" of these films.

Last edited by sto_vo_kor_2000 on Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe

Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds

T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach

Lastjustice wrote:Again you're just nitpicking techinicalities which doesn't make you look smart...just makes you look petty. Would looking at the big picture of intent kill you? You seem incapable of that and get bogged down with minor details. It's tranformers not law; fandom doesn't need more red tape.

Hasbro considers it a continuity error..Guess what that means.

I wouldn't bother with him anymore. Let him believe what he wants. On a different note; we are going way off topic. The topic at hand is worn out anyway. -_-

I believe what was given to us on film.

Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe

Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds

T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach